19.05.2013 Views

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Appendix H - Detailed Description of Alternative 6: DOFJItI.-2001-11<br />

Close in Place - Collapsed Structu're itev..Ita DraU<br />

Rcd1ins1S1rikssxn<br />

1 Facility modification would also involve removing and disposing of interfering structures,<br />

2 equipment, and material. During this phase of the work scope, equipment and material removal<br />

3 would be limited to "clean" areas of the 271-U Office Building, the 221-U Facility galleries, and<br />

4 associated storage spaces. This activity would include the removal of the following:<br />

.5 6 • Installed and fixed equipment<br />

7 • All unattached equipment and components<br />

8 • Abandoned supplies<br />

9 • Materials<br />

10<br />

11<br />

• Debris.<br />

12<br />

13<br />

These items would be sorted for reuse, recycle, or disposal.<br />

14 H.1.3.2 Removal of Contaminated Equipment in 221-LJ it is estimated that there isgrc<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

(^-120<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

approximately 5,400 m3 (7,000 yd) of contaminated equipment and components (gross loose<br />

volume before size reduction currently 6toFed-on the canyon deck and in the process cells. For<br />

Alternative 6, those process cells with legacy equipment having dose rates >100 mrcm/hr would<br />

be opened only to place size-reduced legacy equipment from the operating deck and prour into<br />

them. All of the equipment would be reduced in size and volume and then disposed into the<br />

process cells meeting the dose rate criteria (except for cel13, which would be left unfilled for<br />

later equipment or-waste-placement). Size and volume reduction would be necessary so that all<br />

of the contaminated equipment would fit into the process cells. Minimizing the amount of size<br />

and volume reduction to just the amount of effort required to allow the contaminated equipment<br />

24<br />

25<br />

to fit into the process cells would be desirable because it would limit worker exposure.<br />

26 Ia t he-preeess-eelis-enFy<br />

27<br />

nd+kietding<br />

28<br />

,'<br />

29<br />

30<br />

31<br />

32<br />

33<br />

34<br />

35<br />

36<br />

37<br />

38<br />

0 0<br />

39<br />

40<br />

Size and volume reduction would require a disposition plan for each equipment item. If breaking<br />

or cutting activities are necessary for disposing of the equipment, the 221-U Canyon Building<br />

41 would be the best location to do these activities because it is a closed facility for controlling<br />

42 contamination spread. The most significant contribution to worker exposure under Alternative 6<br />

" 43 1 would be the size reduction of the contaminated legacy equipment that is currently •tered-on the<br />

44 operating deck. Estimated worker dose for thcse activities alone is nearly 36 person-rem (BHI<br />

Final Feasibility Stady jor the Canyon Disposition lnhiative (221-U Facility)<br />

Iunc ?OOl H-10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!